CRM (A)/2297/2026 of RAJIB KUMAR DALAL @ RAJIV DALAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 August 2026

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Haringhata Police Station Case No. 359 of 2026 dated 11.07.2026, under Sections 341/323/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of five years in lodging the present FIR. He further submits that initially, way back in 2021, in relation to the same incident, a case was registered, in which the present petitioner was discharged. However, subsequently, on 11th July, 2026, in relation to the selfsame incident, another complaint was lodged and, on the basis of such complaint, another case came to be registered. He further submits that allowing the present case to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Placing reliance on T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, it is submitted that, in view of the proposition of law laid down in the said decision, the present case ought to be quashed. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary.

3. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, he submits that both the cases are parallel in nature and should be dealt with in accordance with the principles laid down in the said decision in Babubhai (supra).

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the injury report.

5. On perusal of the complaint, it prima facie appears that the date and time of the incident in the present case are almost similar. Therefore, it is to be considered whether the doctrine of sameness will apply or not. No injury report is available in the case diary. There is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. Taking note of these facts, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that he may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner, namely, Rajib Kumar Dalal @ Rajiv Dalal, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia and

also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)